Process and Impact Evaluation of the Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information, and Operations Network (ACTION) Program

• NCJ Number: 217906
• Author(s): Daniel P. Mears; Michelle L. Scott; Avinash S. Bhati; John Roman; Aaron Chalfin; Jesse Jannetta
• Date Published: January 2007
• Length: 192 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2003-DD-BX-1017
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation

Annotation

This evaluation assesses the effectiveness of California's ACTION project (Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information, and Operations Network) in reducing agricultural crime; provides a cost-benefit analysis of ACTION; and suggests how programs like ACTION can be adopted by other jurisdictions.

Abstract

The evaluation found that ACTION increased arrests for agricultural crime, along with prosecutions and the recovery of stolen property, and farmers' investment in crime prevention. The evaluation concluded that ACTION's effectiveness was based on its ability to implement each of a set of diverse activities efficiently while being faithful to the program's design. The evaluation suggests that one or more of ACTION's activities could be adopted in other areas. The evaluation recommends that ACTION's efforts be continued and expanded. ACTION developed a database for tracking agricultural crime, and it mounted education campaigns to the public and farmers regarding agricultural crime and what could be done to prevent it. It encouraged and facilitated the use of equipment-marking and crop-marking, as well as farmers' use of surveillance equipment. ACTION involved law enforcement agency's targeting of agricultural crime and the vertical prosecution of offenders. Evaluation strategies included the collection of data from the Agricultural Census and Census Bureau; victimization surveys in 2004 and 2005; and interviews with ACTION staff and law enforcement and agricultural officials in the intervention site and other States. The impact evaluation examined the causal logic of ACTION, the extent to which program implementation influenced victimization outcomes, and other measures that provided a balanced assessment of program impact. 2 figures, 9 tables, and 61 references